Philosophy Ch 1,2 &3

Front 1

What is Philosophy has 3 ways of providing what?

Back 1

a "big Picture"
1)Mythological
2)Religious
3) Philosophical

Front 2

Mythological

Back 2

Relies upon stories to explain the universe

Front 3

Religious

Back 3

an attempt to offer additional support to a mythology/story bby appealing to divine revelation.

Front 4

Philosophical

Back 4

relies on appeal to the power of reason, by constructing arguments to suport claims about reality

Front 5

Philosophy

Back 5

appeals to reason

Front 6

Relationship between philosopy and science

Back 6

what we know about science came out of philosophy
can say some loose case ther has always been philosophy

Front 7

Philosophy deals with

Back 7

Questions, exp: is there life on mars

Front 8

Some questions can never be answered

Back 8

exp. do we have a soul, what constitutes a person

Front 9

Science works withthe realm of

Back 9

believability, what science is about... looking at the world and asking questions

Front 10

Science does what

Back 10

answers questions

Front 11

Philosophy does what

Back 11

ask's questions

Front 12

main Branches of philosophy

Back 12

Logic Ethic
Epistemology Aesthetics
Metaphysics

Front 13

Logic

Back 13

studies the nature of arguments

Front 14

Epistemology

Back 14

studies the scope and nature of knowledge
Raises thelimites of knowledge
Nature of knowledge

Front 15

Metaphysics

Back 15

studies the nature of ultimate reality
concern with every thing that there is
what knid of existence is there
free will
relationship between the mind and body

Front 16

Ethic

Back 16

Studies questions of how we should act
study of right and wrong
what it means for something to be
right or wrong
concern with right behavior

Front 17

Aesthetics

Back 17

studies questions about art and beauty
ethic's an aesthetics concern with
value

Front 18

What is an argument

Back 18

is a set of statments on of which (conclusion) is affirmed on the basis of the others ( premises)

Front 19

Conclusion

Back 19

the point ou are trying to make

Front 20

Premises

Back 20

supporting statment the reason for accepting the argument

Front 21

2 types of logic

Back 21

Deductive: Concerned with Validity

Inductive: concerned with probability

Front 22

When are arguments valid with validity?

Back 22

when two statments have a true conclusion.

Front 23

Argument

Back 23

a set of statments
Conclusion
Premises

Front 24

Validity, an argument is balid if

Back 24

it is impossible for the conclusion to be false, a

Front 25

An argument is sound if

Back 25

it is valid
all true premises

Front 26

all invalid arguments are unsound by

Back 26

defalt

Front 27

Empiricism

Back 27

One of the 3 theory's of knowledge
the view that our belief can best justifed in light of the evidences we receive from the senses

Front 28

3 people most associated with teh Empiricism Theory

Back 28

John Locke
George Berkeley
David Hume

Front 29

Basic empirical beliefs

Back 29

a direct result of having certain specific sensory expreiences

Front 30

Inferental Beliefs

Back 30

beliefs about what is not directly observable

Front 31

3 theories of preception:

Back 31

1)Naive Realism- the world is exactly the way it appears
2) indirect Realism- the world is approximately the way it appears but not entirely.
3) Idealism-is abandons the idea that there are "real" material objects "behind" our preceptions.

Front 32

naive Realism

Back 32

The world is exactly the way it appears

Front 33

Indirect Realism

Back 33

can be seen as a response to naive realism

Front 34

primary properties

Back 34

mind independent

Front 35

secondary properties

Back 35

mind dependent

Front 36

inference

Back 36

to draw a conclusion

Front 37

imputed evidence

Back 37

physical evidence

Front 38

Idealism-George Berkeley

Back 38

to be is to be preceived
everything is mental, if it is to be preceived than it is mentally done.

Front 39

Ockham's (occam) Razor

Back 39

deals with competing theories, all things being equal, the simplest expiation tends to be correct one.

Front 40

Rationalism

Back 40

the view that our beliefs can be best justified in light of rational evidence
.... that is we can know soemthing if it appears true in light of reason.

Front 41

a priori justification " Latin "
Necessary truth

Back 41

justification that we can take prior to consulting any empirical evidence

Front 42

a posteriori justification "Latin"
contingent truth

Back 42

requires that we refer to specific experiences of the world

Front 43

2 types of truths

Back 43

1) necessary truth
2) Contingent truth

Front 44

Necessary Truth

Back 44

something that is true and could not be otherwise.

Front 45

Contingent truth

Back 45

soemthing is contingently true if it is ture, but could have been other wise.

Front 46

Determinism

Back 46

thetheory that the future is rixed by the past

Front 47

German philosopher

Back 47

Arthur Schopenhauer.

Front 48

Responses to teh problem of free will

Back 48

hard determinism
indeterminism
soft determinism/ compatiblism
libertarianism

Front 49

hard determinsim

Back 49

the past completley in every single way determines the future.
the future is caused by the past
..Causality is
......the cause of an event happens prior to the effect
......once a cause has happened the effect has to happen as well

Front 50

Indeterminism

Back 50

future is random and unpredictable

Front 51

Soft determinism/compatiblism

Back 51

we can have free will even if he future is determined

Front 52

Types of soft determinism

Back 52

traditional compatiblism
deep self compatiblism

Front 53

Libertarianism

Back 53

human are free to shape the future

Front 54

Principle of sufficent reason

Back 54

the view that everyting has explantation, even if we can't now wha teh explantations is

Front 55

Argument in defense of hard determinism

Back 55

all events have cause
our actions are events
all caused events are determined by the past
Therefore
our actions are determined byt eh past
if our actions are determined byt eht past, then we have no power to act other then the way we do
THerefore
we hve no free will

Front 56

Argument against hard determinism

Back 56

if hard determinism is true, than we have no free will
if we havn o free will, than we are not responsible fo our actions
we are responsible fo rour actions
therefore hard determinism is false

Front 57

Indeterminism

Back 57

random not freely chosen the opposite end of hard determinism
unpredictable

Front 58

Soft Determinism ( compatibilism)

Back 58

we can have free willl, even if the future is determined as long as our action are caused in the right way